Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

102 comments

This is just... (1)

reeno49 (1558221) | about 3 years ago | (#36674222)

Absolutely unprecedented. I'm shocked. Did ANYONE see this coming?

Re:This is just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674288)

Google did, when they released GMail Chat.

Re:This is just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674926)

whoooosh...

Re:This is just... (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 years ago | (#36674422)

Say Goodbye to your Bandwidth.
As I know the youth of today will never close any video chat, ever!

Re:This is just... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 years ago | (#36684640)

As I know the youth of today will never close any video chat, ever!

Bits aren't metered, so they have no disincentive to not cost you extra money.

Let the Microsoft bashing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674234)

...and the Facebook bashing begin!

Re:Let the Microsoft bashing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674976)

Let the Microsoft bashing and the Facebook bashing continue for good reason!

FTFY

Re:Let the Microsoft bashing... (1)

daedae (1089329) | about 3 years ago | (#36675394)

Let the Microsoft bashing and the Facebook bashing continue for no good reason!

FTFY

FTFY. At least, in this case. I mean, sure, bash Facebook's privacy debacles, and bash Microsoft's patent strong-arming, but there's no real reason to bash them in the context of this article.

And now I will get modded down for daring to disagree without posting as AC.

Beginning of the End (4, Insightful)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about 3 years ago | (#36674250)

They should have announced real privacy controls, and a google+ circle clone. Instead they've added an unnecessary feature designed to distract people from their true problems. Right now they have an approval rating slightly better than the IRS. I suspect that the stated 750 million users will be their high point, and it's all MySpace from here on out.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

ebs16 (1069862) | about 3 years ago | (#36674306)

Facebook has already has a google+ circle clone. They restructured facebook groups a while back to provide essentially the same function, they just haven't pushed the feature.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about 3 years ago | (#36674364)

Thanks, I didn't realize that. I cancelled my account a year or so ago over all the privacy problems.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674796)

False. The restructured groups is substantially different than Circles. Groups are static, shared spaces. Circles are personal organization. Groups do have some nice features (such as group chat), but they don't grasp the personal nature of circles. The beauty of circles is that they are one-way: if I'm in someone's circle, it doesn't effect me in any way, and I don't even know what circle I'm in or why. In a group, it is a rigid container to add people to, that everyone in the group has roughly equal ownership of. That isn't what Circles is about, and not what I'm looking for.

See here for a good writeup of Groups: http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/10/07/groups-walkthrough-docs-chat/

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

Arctech (538041) | about 3 years ago | (#36674836)

While the feature does exist, it takes a good bit of time to set up and organize (especially for people with 200+ contacts) and on top of that it's cumbersome to use. Google+'s Circles feature, as I understand it, is introduced with the addition of every contact, and in every post you make it's made very clear with what groups you are communicating information to.

Re:Beginning of the End (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675062)

Their version is much more difficult to manage and also use the same way as Googles. You have to go to the Group and then post it in there rather than just choosing the Circles you want to post too right from your status area. Try posting the same thing to 3 different groups on Facebook...you do it 3 times...not just once.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36674372)

Unnecessary? Yeah, maybe us slashdotters wont use the video chat feature much, but normal people love it. To be honest I rather use MSN Messenger with my girlfriend, but such feature really is essential to Facebook too.

Retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674414)

"To be honest I rather use MSN Messenger with my girlfriend"

What a loser.

Not Unnecessary,Just Incredibly Poorly Implemented (1)

AddisonW (2318666) | about 3 years ago | (#36674612)

All Facebook has done is bolt Skype's desktop client onto their old Facebook webpage. You actually are forced to download and install the Skype software the first time you try to video chat with someone on Facebook.

You might as well just use the existing Skype desktop client instead of this hack.

This desperate response from Facebook is not in the same league as Google+:

Facebook with Skype bolted on:

* Only 1 on 1
* Clunky first time external software instillation

Google+:

* Up to ten person group chat
* Works on any platform
* Seamless operation - it just works. No clunky external software instillation
* Group video/youtube watching sessions

Re:Beginning of the End (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674688)

You can already modify specific groups or people that can see posts/photos/etc with Friend Lists in Facebook. You actually have much more control than the Google Plus Circles IMO.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 years ago | (#36674710)

They should have announced real privacy controls

The real privacy control is "don't post it on the Internet in the first place".

Privacy controls, even if they were strong, don't exist. If even one other person can see it, they can easily turn "friends only" into "everyone". (Google+ illustrated this perfectly by letting friends repost indefinitely).

Facebook's privacy controls are privacy theatre. Facebook wants you to spill your guts on it. The only reason these controls exist is a significant percentage of the population won't spill their guts if they didn't think they had some control over it.

Try limiting news to friends only and you'll find out everyone else knows pretty damn quick.

And this extends to real life too - with friends asked not to facebook or twitter things like marriages, birth of a child, etc.

For me, I'm careful what I post on Facebook and who my friends are. Some of them I've never accepted as friends because I'm not sure how I can limit their access, so they live in friend-to-be purgatory.

And yes, it's privacy theatre just like the security theatre that goes on at airports now. And enough people will kick and scream and complain if you try to ask them to simply withold information they don't want the entire world to see.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about 3 years ago | (#36674988)

The real privacy control is "don't post it on the Internet in the first place". Privacy controls, even if they were strong, don't exist.

I think you mean perfect privacy controls don't exist. It is possible to make some things harder than others, much in the same way that a door with a lock is more of a deterent than a door without one. Right now Facebook doesn't even have a decent lock.

Re:Beginning of the End (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675226)

Privacy controls, even if they were strong, don't exist. If even one other person can see it, they can easily turn "friends only" into "everyone". (Google+ illustrated this perfectly by letting friends repost indefinitely).

Nit pick: The author of a post can select "Disable Reshare" in the options menu, which is the small triangle on the upper right corner of each post. However, nothing can stop someone from cutting and pasting, so your point stands.

Re:Beginning of the End (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36677994)

However, nothing can stop someone from cutting and pasting, so your point stands.

You have some really shitty friends if that were to happen. There is absolutely nothing any software can do to prevent that. Witness DRM.

Re:Beginning of the End (1)

hitmark (640295) | about 3 years ago | (#36675022)

Iirc, there is http://www.circlehack.com/ [circlehack.com] for the circle stuff.

Awkward Feature (2)

N8F8 (4562) | about 3 years ago | (#36674254)

Yay, now I'll have a bunch of relatives trying to videochat me like they try to chat me now. And I'll get to spend even more time explaining why I couldn't answer (or didn't want to).

Re:Awkward Feature (1)

slackzilly (2033012) | about 3 years ago | (#36674356)

1 Create different groups.

2 Add the people you don't want to chat with to one group.

3 Always appear offline to that group.

Re:Awkward Feature (1)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36674446)

I did exactly this after some relatives added me and they just didn't understand the online/idle color in Facebook and would always flood me with "hello??" and get mad when I didn't answer. Works like a charm, they don't see me online anymore, but everyone else do. And it's still not completely blocking. You can also easily ignore status updates from people that flood them. Most problems that people here on slashdot complain about are easily fixed with one click.

Re:Awkward Feature (1)

slackzilly (2033012) | about 3 years ago | (#36675188)

Yup and you can control which group can see what you publish. And people think google+ just thought of it.

Re:Awkward Feature (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 years ago | (#36674972)

4. Learn when to say 'I'm busy. We can chat later"

Re:Awkward Feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36680034)

You DO know that:

a) You don't need to be logged on to Facebook when you don't have time or will to chat.

b) You can actually be logged on Facebook and have their chatting application turned off.

Right?

The great conglomerate of shittiness (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 3 years ago | (#36674256)

I'm glad I stayed out of Facebook (not that it ever held any interest to me in the first place), I'm glad I stayed away from Skype before it got gobbled up by Microsoft and made to go to bed with Facebook (who needs super secret telephony protocols when SIP is around), and therefore I'm doubly glad none of my personal information is on any of Zuckerberg's or Balmer's servers.

Re:The great conglomerate of shittiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674296)

You think other people haven't uploaded images of you? You're wrong..

Re:The great conglomerate of shittiness (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 3 years ago | (#36674394)

I am very anal about being photographed, and usually stay clear away from group photos. So unless someone made photos of me secretly, which they haven't because I'm mister Nobody and I have no interest to anybody outside of my family, I'm fairly sure there are no image of me on Facebook, or indeed anywhere on the internet.

Re:The great conglomerate of shittiness (2)

reeno49 (1558221) | about 3 years ago | (#36674512)

Also keep in mind that if someone has any of your information loaded into their cellphone contacts, if they were to sync their contacts to Facebook, then Zuckerberg definitely has your information.

Re:The great conglomerate of shittiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674872)

You look so happy.

Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 3 years ago | (#36674280)

Bound to be a setting which allows Facebook to turn on my camera without my knowledge.

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36674334)

This is Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. With the wave of my fucking dick, you tiny little asshole, I can make the camera turn on on your computer even if you don't have one on your computer, because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. As we speak, I, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg, now have 750 million adherents, and pretty soon we're gonna outnumber Catholics and Muslims, and then you fucking watch, because I'm Mark fucking Zuckerberg, and me watching you give it to your wife will be the least you'll be worrying about.

Fuck ya!

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36674754)

Woah, your ego is approaching that of Jobs. But Facebook is not as cool as Apple. People trust Jobs not to watch their bedroom while they're scrumping their wife. I'm not so sure "Hello, I'm Mark Fuckerberg and I promise I won't abuse your privacy" will be quite as believable.

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36674882)

This is Mark Fucking Zuckerberg responding to the tiny little man who replied to my post. I've always stated that I don't give a fuck about your privacy, and see your data as a commodity I can sell to make a profit and further inflate my massive fucking ego. You just wait, pretty soon Facebook will be on your fridge and in your fucking toilet and I, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg will be watching you make a ham on rye and then watch you crap it out the other end, because, that's right, I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. And if you turn off "Post Toilet Pictures" settings, I'll wait two months and change the security policies so it's right there on your fucking wall, because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg.

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36675104)

What an honor sir. I never thought you'd reply to me. But since we're on speaking terms now I thought I'd ask what you'd do if I buy an Apple refrigerator and an Apple fucking toilet so Steve Jobs can protect me from your Facebook app's peeping tom feature? What then, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg?

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36675406)

This is Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. And what are you gonna run on your fridge, MySpace?

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675280)

Mark, you should know better than to fuck Zuckerberg while posting on slashdot.

Don't fuck and post!

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

improfane (855034) | about 3 years ago | (#36674444)

Does the Facebook/Skype use Flash or does it require you install Skype?

If it it uses Flash and you're on Windows you can block all websites from accessing your webcam in the Flash privacy settings. You have to do it after every update though because it resets.

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#36674938)

Does the Facebook/Skype use Flash or does it require you install Skype?

If it it uses Flash and you're on Windows you can block all websites from accessing your webcam in the Flash privacy settings. You have to do it after every update though because it resets.

My wife's magnetically glued to the facebook client on her ipod touch... I'm guessing that means it doesn't use flash, at least on apple i-products?

Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,

KSR Kim Stanley Robinson's mars trilogy? KSR rocks.
Leon Frankowski's crosstime engineer series (not exactly sci fi but ... sorta alternative history, like a robinson crusoe version of 1632)
Some of Ringo's Posleen series such as the freely available Hells Faire might appeal to you, but if not, don't say I didn't warn you..
Google for the name Nathan Lowell and "quarter share" its kind of soft for sci fi yet strangely addictive for an audio book.

And this discussion is exactly why FB sucks and I got rid of it. Everyone's posts were so boringly vanilla bland so as to fit in with all the other American Idol fans. Those about to read hard sci fi salute you...

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 3 years ago | (#36675368)

FYI, it uses some sort of Skype plugin, it looks like. I tried it on an Ubuntu system and it wanted me to download and install a .exe. I don't know if it uses flash; it doesn't work with Linux, apparently...

Re:Time to check the privacy settings again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36677202)

Bound to be a setting which allows Facebook to turn on my camera without my knowledge.

Black Duct Tape. There, I fixed it!

Yay!!! (1)

mrquagmire (2326560) | about 3 years ago | (#36674298)

Now I can not only know what a bunch of people I don't care about are doing everyday, I can also video chat with a bunch of people I don't care about!!!

Re:Yay!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674380)

Sounds like you need some new friends.

Re:Yay!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36676158)

Now I can not only know what a bunch of people I don't care about are doing everyday, I can also video chat with a bunch of people I don't care about!!!

Why have you friended/accepted people you don't care about?

How does this thing scale? (0)

bogaboga (793279) | about 3 years ago | (#36674304)

That's the question. How does Skype scale? I personally do not trust this peer to peer set-up from Skype.

Try engaging more than 7 people in a video chat to see what I mean.

Re:How does this thing scale? (1)

plsenjy (2104800) | about 3 years ago | (#36674396)

You have more than 7 friends? What are you doing on /.?

Re:How does this thing scale? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#36674464)

They use Linux and PostgreSQL. That means it is the most superior design right?

Re:How does this thing scale? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 3 years ago | (#36674876)

They use Linux and PostgreSQL. That means it is the most superior design right?

Nope, not at all. Remember that even with the 'best tools' administrators can do a pretty poor job.

Like Adobe's Flash, some sites work well yet others do not.

In my few years of administering databases, I have seen poor and sorry implementations of the simplest of ideas, yet more efficient tools exist on the same system.

Nice, I guess (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36674314)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not impressed since it still requires software to be installed on the desktop. I guess it's removing a step by not making me launch skype, but I'd be really impressed if it was purely browser based like the new google solutions just announced.

Huh? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#36674340)

What's Facebook?

Re:Huh? (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36674852)

It's the website spin-off of the revolutionary iPhone app that Apple has.

How about disabling chat? (2)

agent_vee (1801664) | about 3 years ago | (#36674346)

Annoys me when I get a unwanted chat message on Facebook. I want to completely disable the chat feature but there is no way that I know of. I can sign out of chat but that won't stop Facebook from automatically signing me back in later. The last thing I want is video chat requests popping up in my browser.. ugh

Re:How about disabling chat? (0)

c.derby (574103) | about 3 years ago | (#36674434)

i guess "options > go offline" was too hard to find.

Re:How about disabling chat? (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | about 3 years ago | (#36675318)

Nick Burns: Your company's computer guy!

Re:How about disabling chat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36676434)

i guess "options > go offline" was too hard to find.

When it comes to Facebook, the otherwises l33t Slashdot crowd seems particularly helpless. Options are difficult to find, computers are scary.

Re:How about disabling chat? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674508)

You can either block the following:
*facebook.com/ajax/chat*
*facebook.com/images/chat*
*facebook.com/ajax/presence*
*.channel*.facebook.com/x/*/false/p_*

Or you can block the following IP range:
69.63.176.161 - .199

Or you can just select "Go Offline" in the Facebook chat app.

Nothing new here (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | about 3 years ago | (#36674370)

Group chat has been something that other apps have provided on facebook for over 4 years, nothing new here, just move along. As for video chat, that hasn't been in Google Talk and Skype for a very long time, has it? It's interesting to see confirmation that facebook is actually teaming up with Microsoft, the new owners of Skype. Maybe this is how M$ will try to make themselves relevant again, other than by being a patent troll.

Perfect (0)

mr1911 (1942298) | about 3 years ago | (#36674384)

Now instead of launching Skype to video chat, I can log into Facebook and then launch Skype to video chat.

Google out socialed Facebook (3, Interesting)

JustinFreid (1723716) | about 3 years ago | (#36674438)

Google out socialed Facebook with Hangout - it allows simultaneous video chat with multiple people and allows the group to watch a YouTube video and will probably soon allow sharing of stills and allow collaborative drawing or document editing, too.
Facebook's repost here is a feature that Google integrated into its chat product long ago. Maybe this explains Mark's obvious chagrin in his Google+ profile picture.

And the news is ? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 years ago | (#36674448)

I'm not saying I was an early adopter ... especially here on slashdot ... but I was chatting in a browser a year or two ago with Google Chat ...

Seems more or less that this is exactly the same thing.

Google had the initial perceived advantage that I could just get any video capable XMPP client to work with it ... which of course isn't the case since no one follows any standard when it comes to video so there really is no difference, except this is way later, by someone I trust even less than Google with my personal data, and someone who I trust completely to intentionally fuck up the implementation resulting in data being available to those who shouldn't see it.

Not that Google did browser based video first or anything ... not like we weren't dicking around and 'webchatting' in the late 90s or anything either.

You know why no one knows that anyone with a web cam and some software could do this any time in the last 10 years? Because, as it turns out, just because you CAN video chat with your 'friends' ... doesn't mean you actually want to or have a use for this ability. Sure, some people do, but lets just be realistic, as cool as it looks on TV, no one ACTUALLY wants to video chat on a regular basis. Hell most people SMS rather than just calling someone on the phone if possible. I predict people (in general) would rather spend 15 minutes texting than 7 on the phone, 3 in a video chat.

+5 to the first comment (2)

Kozz (7764) | about 3 years ago | (#36674450)

I kindly ask the moderators to promote to "+5 informative" the first post which provides comprehensive instructions on how to fully opt-out of these new "features".

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#36674530)

Opt out by not using them? Don't you opt-in by initiating or accepting a video chat in the first place? Wouldn't it work the same as opting out of Skype video chats?

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

Kozz (7764) | about 3 years ago | (#36674626)

Opt out by not using them? Don't you opt-in by initiating or accepting a video chat in the first place? Wouldn't it work the same as opting out of Skype video chats?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? If you were unfamiliar with Facebook, perhaps... but I've no doubt that any and all new FB features will be "opt-in" by default for all users everywhere, and in ways you didn't think were possible or make any sense.

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674788)

Well, currently you're wrong and just imagining things, so quit whining or quit facebook.

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | about 3 years ago | (#36674862)

Don't hook up a camera or microphone?

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

hitmark (640295) | about 3 years ago | (#36675002)

Difficult on a laptop with both built in.

Re:+5 to the first comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675276)

Ever hear of tape?!? Frigging moron!

Re:+5 to the first comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675440)

Device manager -> Right click -> Disable

Re:+5 to the first comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675908)

Difficult on a laptop with both built in.

Install Linux on said laptop so either can't work.

Re:+5 to the first comment - The Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36676210)

I kindly ask the moderators to promote to "+5 informative" the first post which provides comprehensive instructions on how to fully opt-out of these new "features".

Don't. Click. Accept. On. Incoming. Video Calls. Solved.

Re:+5 to the first comment (1)

Zanadou (1043400) | about 3 years ago | (#36682944)

For video chat?

Don't install the required video plugin when prompted to (at least on Firefox 5).

I reckon that'll stop it from working.

I don't use Facebook (0)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#36674480)

When do we get the new Slashdot feature to block all 'I don't use Facebook because it's stupid / don't have any friends I want to connect with / whatever other high-horse reason' posts so you can actually discuss new relevant to one of the largest online applications in the world?

Re:I don't use Facebook (1)

wr37chd00d (893862) | about 3 years ago | (#36675098)

Probably the same time we get the new Slashdot feature to automatically remove any FaceBook stories from the front page.
Oh wait, that's like NOT clicking the link and reading the comments.

On a more serious note, when did relevant "new" discussions come back to /.?

Re:I don't use Facebook (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 3 years ago | (#36675350)

Set your moderation threshold higher. It won't block all of them, but if you're only looking at Score:3 items, you won't see a lot of the redundant nonsense. Of course, if I had done the same, I would have missed this little meta-gem of a post...

Patience (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 years ago | (#36678246)

Now that Microsoft's having their Partner Banquet with Microsoft you won't have to worry about it much longer. Pretty soon Zuckerberg's going to find Facebook isn't a guest at the banquet - it's the main dish. It is always this way. Over and over and over these stupid companies do this and it always ends the same way.

Woo Hoo! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36674554)

Now I'll get to see live video of those tasty sandwiches my friends are enjoying - no more of this boring still photo crap!

Wait, so... (2)

kakyoin01 (2040114) | about 3 years ago | (#36674604)

...how is this any better than using Skype separately? Are we so lazy and dependent that we need video chat integrated into Facebook as well? Now we have to put up with all the hassles of the integration (privacy, more layout changes). Just great.

Re:Wait, so... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | about 3 years ago | (#36675070)

Macs are supported too. Linux users are out in the cold:)

Re:Wait, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36676958)

Macs are supported too. Linux users are out in the cold:)

Yay! Another reason to use Linux! ;)

the microsoft windows requirement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674666)

When you try to use the video calling feature, it pops a .EXE file download. I guess they expect everyone to be using Micro$oft products. They kind of left that out of the discussion.... Would have been a better solution had they just used html5 or flash video.

Re:the microsoft windows requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675066)

HTML5 video? There is no such thing.

Think about it: HTML Video. It is not possible. All it does is hook out to some other software that you need to have installed already.

Slashdot obsolete by Google+... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674680)

I'm sorry to say. The relevant pictures, info, and articles I see, along with very nice comment system on G+, and not forgetting the ability to easily filter out morons is quite an innovation. It has to be said and Facebook can't compete on that either.

Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

gilgongo (57446) | about 3 years ago | (#36674828)

People have been trying to make video chat popular for YEARS. Every single major comms player since about 1980 has tried to make it into something more than a niche for pervs and loons, and failed - miserably.

The latest flogging of the dead horse of video for interpersonal comms was Apple with Facetime. Flop.* Or at least, everyone I know has iPhone 4s and iPad 2's - they all used Facetime once, and concluded as bazillions of people have concluded down the years, that it was awkward, distracting and just downright useless.

Think about it: you do not open a comms channel in whatever medium and think "You know, I just WISH I could see their faces."

Let's see if FB can make it work. I give it 10,000:1 on past history.

* Cue people making up technical reasons why it was a flop. But they are wrong. The reasons are human. Non-technical. You don't want to talk up somebody's nose, or see them looking away from you, or get fixated on trying to work out if you are on the toilet on not.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

mangino (1588) | about 3 years ago | (#36675108)

Really? Facetime a flop? Do you have kids? Do you live apart from Family? My family loves Facetime. I can follow my kids around with a phone much more easily than a computer so that Grandma and Granpa can watch them play. I wouldn't expect people to make video calls all the time, but it sure makes family seem closer.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675198)

Sounds to me like the grandparents need to get off their ass a bit more often and come see the family. Technology just enables people to be lazier.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go order a pizza online.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

TheUser0x58 (733947) | about 3 years ago | (#36675716)

Right, grandparents that may have health problems, may not be capable of driving on their own, may live 7000 miles away, and/or may not be able to afford the gas money at $4/gallon. They're so lazy.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

lennier (44736) | about 3 years ago | (#36676618)

Sounds to me like the grandparents need to get off their ass a bit more often and come see the family.

Darn right, if they really cared they would get down off that bullock cart and walk all the way, like humans.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

TheUser0x58 (733947) | about 3 years ago | (#36675944)

Are you joking? I video chat with one of my (non-technical) best friends a few times a month. My other friend video chats with his long-distance girlfriend every day. Another friend video chats with her family on the other side of the ocean a few times a week. At my last job skype video conferences were a fixture of our development/design process, and also common for interviewing engineering candidates. Video chat pretty much happened.

The truth is that people communicate a lot of information through their facial expressions (and hands/arms). Its simply a richer, more human interaction, as far as real-time conversations go. Yeah for discussing the finer details of a new memory manager for the Linux kernel IRC or Jabber is probably ok and maybe even superior (I'd rather not see the fat cheeto-encrusted face on the other end of that conversation anyways). But for normal conversations between normal people its great technology.

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

lennier (44736) | about 3 years ago | (#36676604)

Think about it: you do not open a comms channel in whatever medium and think "You know, I just WISH I could see their faces."

Speak for yourself, I've been using MSN video chat for years to talk to relatives overseas.

You do know people online who you've met in real life... right?

Re:Video chat? What kind of idea is that? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#36677426)

something more than a niche for pervs and loons

I think you have some unresolved issues. Got scarred by live re-enaction of goatse on ChatRoulette, by chance?

Wow, like, FWOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36674890)

All those "eNgineeRs" and they came up with this! FB is definitely worth a 100 Billion+ $$'s !!!

Coporate software development (1)

psydeshow (154300) | about 3 years ago | (#36675758)

It took thousands of highly-skilled engineers millions of man-hours to piggy-back on someone else's product in such an non-innovative way!

Why is this such a big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36675846)

Is it for people who are too lazy to use skype alone or the millions of pluggins already available for their browsers?

all done (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36678404)

goodbye facebook, i hardly liked you. now i hate you.

Figures that they'd choose Skype (1)

Fallout2man (689436) | about 3 years ago | (#36686996)

Normally I don't rag on Facebook for privacy...but they have to have video chat, and choose the ONE company determined to make Law Enforcement's wet dream of total VOIP surveillance even in retroactivity a reality. FB is probably working with them to automatically transcribe your calls so that ads can be targeted at you based on what you talk about with relatives. I am deeply disappointed.

Why be so open with your information? (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about 3 years ago | (#36703398)

It's not like I have anything to hide really, but I don't understand why the trend went from the "anonymous" internet to "Hey, everybody can see my personal phone number and address! Look at the fetishes I have and guess who I'm cheating with!" I don't even really see the purpose of putting Skype video chat into Facebook other than mashing together your contact lists - you know so now people you barely know over the internet who once wrote on your wall can just up and video chat with you. Seriously, this whole Facebook thing is beyond me and I can't wait until the trend of letting everybody know everything about you and what you think dies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...